The wet weight is what you really need to see. None of the later VFR-800's were "light" by my standard. For your reference, here is a quick download from my database, sorted by wet weight. Note also, the power-to-wet weight ratio. Sorting on that ratio gives a totally different picture (send email if you are interested).

625SXC wrote ...What is the "Motorcycle Industry" definition of a SPORT TOURING BIKE?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure of the "Motorcycle Industry" definition, but here's my three sport tourers.

All are comfortable, powerful, have excellent fairings, go real fast, and handle great in the twisties.

The Sprint has an OEM pannier rack and SW-Motech top rack. I made a pannier rack and top rack for the Falco.
I'm currently fabricating a pannier rack for the big Ninja. For daily riding I prefer only a tank bag.

My former sport touring bikes included an ST 1100 ( 17 years), Concours 1000, and FJR 1300. This current crop is way more fun

@ yostwerks... I'm still working on 3 bikes, but my choices would be 3 different bikes for different kinds of riding experiences...(GSA and MegaMoto- now I need a trail bike)
I was wondering what your perspective is on having 3 bikes that are all sorta "cousins"?

what they say about power corrupting is true. I've been using my k1200rs and futura to commute lately, since it's 27 miles each way. Today, my last day here, I set a new personal best, covering those 27 miles in 20 minutes flat. luckily i'm taking a job with only a 6 mile city commute, otherwise i'd probably injure myself on the k bike

the dry weight is meaningless in the real world, unless you intend to ride your bike with an empty tank and no fluids in the engine and transmission. If you do so, please post videos.

Click to expand...

No, it's not meaningless. All bikes require fluids/battery/etc. But some bikes have different fuel capacities, which skews the comparison. So as a metric, dry weight is actually a better tool to measure the weight of the materials used to build the bike.

You're right that the wet weight is useful to know, but it's not a good way of measuring lots of different bikes against one another.

No, it's not meaningless. All bikes require fluids/battery/etc. But some bikes have different fuel capacities, which skews the comparison. So as a metric, dry weight is actually a better tool to measure the weight of the materials used to build the bike.

You're right that the wet weight is useful to know, but it's not a good way of measuring lots of different bikes against one another.

Click to expand...

dry weight doesn't include things like loctite or assembly lube, it's more or less a fictitious number derived from the sum of the calculated masses of a CAD file.

the only numbers worth anything aren't even given by mfg's, they're found by independent sources rolling the bike onto a scale.

It's just as fair to weigh bikes full of fuel and expect people to be able to calculate the weight difference due to fuel capacity, as it is to weigh the bikes empty of fuel and expect people to calculate the weight difference due to fuel capacity.

what doesn't make sense is to use the dry weight figures, which are unverifiable unless you want to fully disassemble a bike and clean it of all contamination and weigh all the parts, unless you do this all you're getting is a mfg claim which is pretty much always subject to a good degree of fudging.

I personally wouldn't mind if people started measuring CG location and MOI about various axes, and then for giggles measured the MOI's again at various engine and wheel RPMs. a guy can dream

Don't really see many sport tourers around here either. If I dismiss all the H-D's and sport bikes, there are few of anything to spot. Dual sports, BMW has that one covered around here. Saw a GS650 just today at Tractor Supply. I'm aware of four C14 riders locally.

I personally wouldn't mind if people started measuring CG location ....

Click to expand...

Dry weight, wet weight, it really is all about how the bike carries its weight, right? With mass closer to the ground and the bike would feel lighter.

So to use weights in determining a bike purchase, shouldn't the buyer also straddle the bike considered? :kbasa

My Goldwing didn't feel heavy as long as I didn't tilt it more than a few degrees but, my C14 at a few hundred pound lighter feels just as heavy. If either were to get past a point of no return, I'm jumping out of the way.

But dry weight is actually more of an apples-to-apples comparison of how weight-efficient the bike was actually engineered since it's not distorted by different sized fuel tanks.

Click to expand...

I think I get what you are trying to say here and I agree to some degree however I think that the size of the fuel tank and its subsequent weight with fuel should be considered overall when looking at weight since we don't ride without gas in the tank. The manufactures plan and take this into consideration when designing the bike so why shouldn't it be considered. I am sure more then one manufacturer has made a tank smaller just to save weight weight and handling characteristics. Who cares if one bike is 10 pounds heavier then another if it handles better so I agree that the design and center of mass etc...are just as critical. Dry weights are just something the manufacturer puts out to appease us the buyers so we can quote the statistics for our buddies. I understand you are driving at the materials used in the manufacturing process therefore it is a more apples to apples comparison but that really only applies if you are going to set them up for display. The actual rideable weight and pushing it around in the garage is more important............